If this trade as it stands today, is a loss...I'd like to know what a winning trade would look like. What does a good trade for Monta look like? This team needed a center, they got a center. What other centers were available at the time that would help the Warriors achieve with the Bogut trade. Gotta be realistic about what their options were at the time...

All I know is Monta HAD to go, and this trade was the best one out there. It's better than just cutting Monta because 1) Bogut trade allowed tank 2) It was well worth the risk to go for Bogut, injury and all. Whether a trade is good or bad isn't only measured in a vaccuum, taken out of context, you gotta look at the surrounding factors. And when you do that, it's easy to see that this was the best trade on the table (even if it was taking a gamble on Bogut's injury) -- and therefore a win.

migya wrote:I'll give a recent example in this team's history that is similar, as such though not totally, to the current trade of Monta for Bogut -

JRich and small change for Brandon Wright: This trade was horrible, but a few people, on this forum as well as other Warriors fans, thought it was a great trade because it got the team a potentially very good big as well as get Monta the starting SG spot. It worked out quite awful, as BWright was nothing for us ever, left for nothing and Monta, though scoring more, was less efficient, especially as his FG% dropped a mile.

This is an excellent parallell to the current state of the Bogut trade: two deals that Golden State, essentially, had no choice but to accept, yet ended up as losses because of the performance of the acquisitions.

In both deals, the Warriors were dealing their best scoring guard for a potentially great big man. Likewise, I endorsed both trades at the time because, on paper, these are no-brainer deals. You ALWAYS trade a little scorer for a potentially great big man. But, unfortunately, in both cases, the trade ended up sour because Wright never developed and Bogut hasn't played.

Trades are not simply the outcome of what everyone thought at the time of the deal; their true impact is measured on a grander scale when the pieces of the trade can be evaluated in their new environment. Monta Ellis is averaging his typical 18, 5.5, and 4 with percentages and turnovers that completely shoot Milwaukee in the foot. And Andrew Bogut was a towering, defensive anchor in all 73 minutes that he laced up. Both men have proven why their teams gave up on them, both men have silenced zero critics, and both men have been disappointments for their squads.

Great point on the BWright trade, migs.

rockyBeli wrote:If this trade as it stands today, is a loss...I'd like to know what a winning trade would look like. What does a good trade for Monta look like? This team needed a center, they got a center. What other centers were available at the time that would help the Warriors achieve with the Bogut trade. Gotta be realistic about what their options were at the time...

All I know is Monta HAD to go, and this trade was the best one out there. It's better than just cutting Monta because 1) Bogut trade allowed tank 2) It was well worth the risk to go for Bogut, injury and all. Whether a trade is good or bad isn't only measured in a vaccuum, taken out of context, you gotta look at the surrounding factors. And when you do that, it's easy to see that this was the best trade on the table (even if it was taking a gamble on Bogut's injury) -- and therefore a win.

Followed by the immediate swap with San Antonio for RJ & the #30 pick.

It's essentially the same deal, but you don't give up the prospect of Epke Udoh, you don't take on Bogut's enormous contract, you have $7 million expirer after the season (Kwame), and you still lose Ellis in the trade to ensure a tank job. At the year's end, rather than spend $4 million of Carl Landry (cause you have Udoh backing up at 4), you have $11 million to pursue a guy like Kaman. With the tank job and the draft going exactly the same, plus the addition of Jack-for-Wright after the Barnes pick, the end result is this:

Is a tandem of Kaman/Udoh better than a tandem of Bogut/Landry? Of course not, but it's definitely better than Landry alone and - thus far - thats what we've got to work with. This whole line of movement puts Ezeli on the bench with Udoh to form a phenomenal defensive bench brigade, and gives the Warriors a true 7-footer with a better offensive game than Bogut. THIS lineup is winning more games than our current lineup is this year. Not a doubt.

The Bucks weren't in a hurry to give us Bogut; we had to throw in a huge expirer and our best prospect to get the deal done. If the team "knew" he was going to need microfracture surgery, and the end goal (when its all said and done) was just to move Ellis, then why in the name of God did they make the trade for Bogut instead of pursuing Kaman, Robin Lopez, Mehmet Okur, Chris Anderson, Sheldon Williams... for the love of God, anyone who would actually PLAY this season.

I realize that Bogut is a top 5, the best defensive center, intangibles, aggressive, blah blah blah... these are all words so long as his roster spot is cheerleader status and nothing else.

oops, I said Captain Jack. We are winning more with Udoh though, he has been particularly below average this year, but still much better than Jeremy Tyler. Anyways, Lee in the center sport has been more productive than Kaman. It speaks to how bad defensively Kaman has been. Landry and Lee at the 4-5 spot, in my opinion is better than Lee-Kaman. Which is why I'd still want to wait for Bogut.

Landry-Lee would statistically be better on paper than Lee-Kaman Landry-Kaman. He has been bad at rebounding and defense this year. We don't need a center that is bad at defense/rebounding. Negative value here with Kaman right now.

If you are referring to UdohYes, we'd win more games with Udoh and we would not have gotten Barnes.

Both of these are facts.

Last edited by Blackfoot on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are you content with David Lee getting the bulk of the center minutes indefinitely? The Bulls game was only the most recent of a long list of teams (Sacramento, Memphis, Orlando, Denver) who have exploited our complete lack of size up front. Yes, the team is tougher. But it's still pretty small. You're good with the idea of paying Bogut the lion's share of salary for 10 or 15 games a year, at 25 minutes per?

Landry-Lee would statistically be better on paper than Lee-Kaman Landry-Kaman. He has been bad at rebounding and defense this year. We don't need a center that is bad at defense/rebounding. Negative value here with Kaman right now.

If you are referring to UdohYes, we'd win more games with Udoh and we would not have gotten Barnes.

Both of these are facts.

Those are absolutely not facts. Both of those are opinion.

Epke Udoh is enough of a difference-maker to add wins to our team without Ellis, Curry, or Lee at the end of last year? I don't buy it. And while Kaman is performing worse than (seemingly) ever, ON PAPER is where he looks good, especially in our rotation.

Are you content with David Lee getting the bulk of the center minutes indefinitely? The Bulls game was only the most recent of a long list of teams (Sacramento, Memphis, Orlando, Denver) who have exploited our complete lack of size up front. Yes, the team is tougher. But it's still pretty small. You're good with the idea of paying Bogut the lion's share of salary for 10 or 15 games a year, at 25 minutes per?

Nothing personal, I'm not trying to attack you or your credibility, but a fact is a scientifically indisputable recount of the universe. Claiming that Udoh would add wins, or that a Kaman/Lee front court is inferior to a Lee/Landry front court, are not facts.

32 wrote:Nothing personal, I'm not trying to attack you or your credibility, but a fact is a scientifically indisputable recount of the universe. Claiming that Udoh would add wins, or that a Kaman/Lee front court is inferior to a Lee/Landry front court, are not facts.

Udoh > Tyler

I mean, it's not a "fact" he'd add wins to last years total, but he definitely probably would.

Fair enough on the second one, but Kaman isn't Kaman anymore, he has negative value at this point in his career unless he is a back up.

You know, you can't suppose a different trade and how the team would have performed if that trade had happened. Personally, I don't think much of Udoh. He performed here as well as he likely will for his entire career and has done little in Milwaukee. That team is in the weak east and struggling to make the playoffs, with bigs that are rather wek as well, giving him all the chance to be a difference maker.

I also agree completely with Blackfoot about Kaman, he is quite awful now, nothing like the rebounder and shotblocker in his breakout year for the Clippers. The team would be far worse defensively and rebounding with him taking up a spot, as well as not being as smooth offensively as it is this season, certainly not performing and winning as well.

Going for Bogut was going for a chance to establish a team that at least is a playoff one for a number of years, something this team hasn't had since RunTMC and those teams were nowhere near top seeds in the west for the few years they did make the playoffs. With Bogut not performing, the team is still a good seed right now and looking like they will win more this season than any other Warriors team since Rick Barry was around winning a championship. All those years ago.

Personally, I believe Bogut has had a huge influence in training in teaching the team how to be far better defensively, starting from the preseason, so even though he hasn't played, he has been a huge positive influence on the team this season. Once he starts playing, the team may well be championship caliber. The new oweners made a great move in getting Bogut and drafting Barnes, as well as the other roster moves. A new winning culture may be here.

Followed by the immediate swap with San Antonio for RJ & the #30 pick.

Sorry 32, but no-one would have accepted swapping Ellis for Captain Jack.

But since when does the front office respect the fans' opinion?

Once again, I feel the need to reiterate that if Bogut contributes ANYTHING (even at 20 minutes per game), this trade is a win. But so long as he rides the pine, you can't call it a victory. Bogut was the chip, Bogut was our target, our prize, and without him the deal is a loss.